T54 (90 mm)

Description

Write an introduction to the article in 2-3 small paragraphs. Briefly tell us about the history of the development and combat using the weaponry and also about its features. Compile a list of air, ground, or naval vehicles that feature this weapon system in the game.

Vehicles equipped with this weapon

• M26E1

General info

Tell us about the tactical and technical characteristics of the cannon or machine gun.

Available ammunition

Comparison with analogues

• M3A1 (90 mm): The M3A1 and T54 share a lot of the same ammunition options, with the M3A1 having access to the M348 HEATFS shell as a benefit. But the T54 fires all of its shells at a much higher velocity, giving it more penetration, although it has a slower reload than the M3A1.
• KwK43 (88 mm): The T54 cannon has many similar characteristics to the Tiger II's main armament, with almost identical muzzle velocity for the APCBC ammunition. The T41 shell for the T54 has slightly less penetration than the PzGr 39/43, but the T41 does have slightly more explosive filler. The HVAP for the T54 is also markedly better than the PzGr 40/43.
• BK 90 (90 mm): The BK 90 has access to more modern ammunition, such as HESH and HEATFS, which make it more versatile and it also reloads far faster than the T54. However, the BK 90 does lack any AP/APCBC round.
• Ordnance QF 20-pounder Mk.I (84 mm): The 20pdr Mk.I has access to APDS ammunition as well as a two-plane stabilizer and does reload much faster, but it also does not have any shell with explosive filler such as the T41.
• D-70 (85 mm): The D-70 cannon has a slightly faster reload and access to 3BK7 HEATFS as well as having slightly better penetration on BR-372 APCBC, but the BR-372 has far less explosive filler and no APCR ammunition.
• D-10T (100 mm): The top APCBC round for the D-10T, the BR-412D, has slightly more penetration than the T41 but has a lower muzzle velocity and less explosive filler. the BR-412P APCR is also far worse than the HVAP Shot on the T54. The D-10T does reload a few seconds faster.
• Type 61 (90 mm): The Type 61 is a near-exact copy of the M3A1, and so shares all of its advantages and disadvantages with it.
• Type 62-85TS (85 mm): All of the ammunition available for the Type 62-85-TS has a lower velocity than the T54 as well as much lower penetration, although it does get access to the Type 1956 HEATFS.
• SA45 (90 mm): The SA45 uses a rotating drum loading system, giving it a reload far faster than the T54, although the drum magazine has a limited number of shells and the ammunition available for the SA45 is slightly worse than the T54 and no explosive-filled rounds are present on the SA45.
• Cockerill Mk.3 (90 mm): The Cockerill Mk.3 uses HEATFS and HESH ammunition but it is low velocity and there is no APCBC/APDS round available, although it does reload faster than the T54.

Usage in battles

Describe the cannon/machine gun in the game - its distinctive features, tactics of usage against notable opponents. Please don't write a "guide" - do not impose a single point of view, but give the reader food for thought.

Pros and cons

Summarise and briefly evaluate the weaponry in terms of its characteristics and combat effectiveness. Mark pros and cons as a list.

Pros:

Cons:

History

The T54 cannon was a part of a development program in late 1944 and into 1945 to take the standard 90 mm M3 cannon and increase the penetration and lethality. Appearances of the Tiger II and its much more powerful 8.8 cm KwK 43 cannon gave a need for a matching weapon, which was done by taking the M3 and lengthening the barrel and changing the ammunition.^[1] The new gun was designated T15 and was 73 calibres long, a substantial increase over the M3 which was 53 calibres. The first test gun, T15E1, was installed on a Pershing tank which was designated T26E1. The T15E1 used fixed ammunition which had a much higher propellant charge, giving a muzzle velocity of 975 m/s (3,200 feet/second) for an armour-piercing round.^[2] While the test performance of the T15E1 was very promising, it was unsuitable for combat as the single-piece ammunition was especially long at 1.27 m (50 inches), making handling and stowage inside of the turret nearly impossible.^[2] The gun was eventually re-chambered for separate ammunition and designated T15E2, which was mounted on the same vehicle now designated T26E4.^[3] The first of these was tested and then shipped to Europe for further testing in the field, and was known as T26E1 Number 1 (the T26E1-1 in-game).^[4]

Even with the change to separated ammunition, the T15E2 still proved to be unwieldy in trials. It was then decided to revert back to fixed ammunition, redesign the cartridge entirely, as well as slightly change the gun itself. The new cartridge was made to have "shorter and fatter dimensions" so it would be easier to handle, making it "of convenient size to handle and load inside the turret."^[5] The new gun was designated T54, and in June 1945 it was decided to construct two modifications of the M26 with the T54, designated as M26E1.^[5] Stowage for 41 rounds of ammunition was provided with 36 of them in floor bins and 5 in a ready rack on the loader's side of the turret. Testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds took place from 1947 to 1949 where it was shown that the T54 was highly accurate and the newly designed recoil mechanism worked as designed, and it was considered the best tank gun designed by the US up to that time.^[5] However, funding for developmental projects was almost nonexistent after the war had ended, so the T54 remained an experiment and was never put into production. Further variants of the M26 used the M3 and its improved version, the M3A1, rather than the T54.

Media

Excellent additions to the article would be video guides, screenshots from the game, and photos.

See also

• T15E1 / T15E2: The T54 cannon is a modification of the T15E1/2, using one-piece ammunition instead of two-piece and using shorter, stubbier rounds to facilitate the reloading.

External links

• Hunnicut, R.P. Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series. Berkeley: Fiest Publications, 1971.

References